Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least with evolution, climate change, etc., I can see the seeds of the conspiratorial thinking, but in this case I'm just puzzled. ...and the science is not overly vague or confusing in this case, yet somehow this particular conspiracy mindset has infected people on both ends of the political spectrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
If/when properly conducted experiments with statistically significant samples sizes show a lack of effectiveness, or that it does more harm than good, I will change my tune.
I broke one of my primary personal rules in this thread, and for that I must now apologize (while wiping egg from my face). I experienced a knee-jerk reaction then jumped in and stated a personal opinion without first tracking down the BEST arguments and evidence against my position. Shame on me. I will let this post stand as a testament to why this is a good general policy, and as an example of what can happen when one fails to uphold it.
There is a bit of extra irony here because I have been a long-time skeptic of big pharma, the medical industry and, more generally, anything where entrenched profit-motive-interests could be driving public paradigms and policies (which seems to include practically everything these days) so this topic should have triggered red flags for me all over the place. But in this case I got just plain lazy and broke my personal vows and now I have to pay for it. Thanks to GuyNTexas for posting the link that awoke me from my lazy slumber and made me feel foolish.
WARNING: I have still not done a good personal investigation of the actual scientific evidence, and I cannot personally attest to the credibility of the article by Jeremy R. Hammond, so I'm not totally flipping over to "the flu vaccine is worthless or dangerous," but I am, for the moment, landing squarely in the camp of "I don't know." Whatever Hammond's personal agenda, credibility, or expertise might be, he does seem to be offering good arguments and evidence for his conclusions, and that carries a lot of weight with me. Perhaps now someone can offer some good counter-arguments that are specific to the claims made by Hammond. If enough of his key points can be refuted, I may go back to my previous position. If not, I might join the ranks of the flu-vax skeptics.
Just to be clear: I'm focusing only on the flu vax here. I still think it is foolish for people to be anti-vax in general (but, as always, I'm open to good evidence and arguments to the contrary). I would hate to see anyone hastily generalize from "the flu vax is a scam" to "all vaxs are scams" or "all science is a scam" etc. - that logical fallacy leads to sheer stupidity and a lot of unnecessary suffering.
As Guy n Texas has pointed out...…. "there is no way to assess vaccine effectiveness in an uncontrolled environment ... meaning: without direct and deliberate exposure to the virus, no one can legitimately claim that the vaccine prevented an illness event, when exposure is unknown. In such an uncontrolled environment, the absence of illness can be the result of non-exposure to the virus, as well as the proper functioning of the immune system upon exposure to it."
I'm over 70, have never gotten the shots, have never had the flu.
Is it because I have an natural immunity? Is it because I've never been exposed? Just lucky? Who knows, even though I have been around a couple of people who did have it.
I might have written this same post five years ago.
Then I got the flu and almost died from it.
I'm told that during the month+ that I was in the hospital (mostly in the ICU on a ventilator), there was a short period, about three days, that I could have gone either way.
Lots of people prayed for me (some that I barely knew), and I managed to recover, but not before tying up a bed in an ICU for three weeks and forcing the people that love me to think about funeral arrangements.
40% say No to Flu shots? What is your outlook on that? Is the glass half empty or (more than) half full? You are never going to have a full glass. Don't get greedy and accept you now have a majority.
I might have written this same post five years ago.
Then I got the flu and almost died from it.
I'm told that during the month+ that I was in the hospital (mostly in the ICU on a ventilator), there was a short period, about three days, that I could have gone either way.
Lots of people prayed for me (some that I barely knew), and I managed to recover, but not before tying up a bed in an ICU for three weeks and forcing the people that love me to think about funeral arrangements.
FWIW, my advice is to get the vaccine.
I'm sorry you were sick.
Did the strain you had match the one in the vaccine?
Were you overweight, unhealthy, immunocompromised?
What health conditions did you have?
Were you taking other medications?
Did you postpone going to the doctor until your symptoms had progressed?
How long were you sick before you sought medical care?
Were you diagnosed properly?
Were you treated properly initially?
What was the efficacy rate of the flu vaccine that year?
All of these questions are important.
All of these questions are ignored, generally by those who beat the vaccine drum.
There is no reason to think that if you had gotten the flu vaccine that year you would NOT have gotten sick.
Not a one.
And there is no proof of that, either.
Very typical outbreak:
"Measles was declared eliminated in the U.S. more than a decade ago. But in recent years, the highly infectious disease has cropped up in communities with low vaccination rates, most recently in North Texas. . .There, 21 people — the majority of whom have not been immunized — have gotten the disease, which began at a vaccine-skeptical megachurch. . . The outbreak began when a man who contracted the virus on a recent trip to Indonesia visited the Eagle Mountain International Church in Newark, about an hour and a half northwest of Dallas."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I broke one of my primary personal rules in this thread, and for that I must now apologize (while wiping egg from my face). I experienced a knee-jerk reaction then jumped in and stated a personal opinion without first tracking down the BEST arguments and evidence against my position. Shame on me. I will let this post stand as a testament to why this is a good general policy, and as an example of what can happen when one fails to uphold it.
There is a bit of extra irony here because I have been a long-time skeptic of big pharma, the medical industry and, more generally, anything where entrenched profit-motive-interests could be driving public paradigms and policies (which seems to include practically everything these days) so this topic should have triggered red flags for me all over the place. But in this case I got just plain lazy and broke my personal vows and now I have to pay for it. Thanks to GuyNTexas for posting the link that awoke me from my lazy slumber and made me feel foolish.
WARNING: I have still not done a good personal investigation of the actual scientific evidence, and I cannot personally attest to the credibility of the article by Jeremy R. Hammond, so I'm not totally flipping over to "the flu vaccine is worthless or dangerous," but I am, for the moment, landing squarely in the camp of "I don't know." Whatever Hammond's personal agenda, credibility, or expertise might be, he does seem to be offering good arguments and evidence for his conclusions, and that carries a lot of weight with me. Perhaps now someone can offer some good counter-arguments that are specific to the claims made by Hammond. If enough of his key points can be refuted, I may go back to my previous position. If not, I might join the ranks of the flu-vax skeptics.
Just to be clear: I'm focusing only on the flu vax here. I still think it is foolish for people to be anti-vax in general (but, as always, I'm open to good evidence and arguments to the contrary). I would hate to see anyone hastily generalize from "the flu vax is a scam" to "all vaxs are scams" or "all science is a scam" etc. - that logical fallacy leads to sheer stupidity and a lot of unnecessary suffering.
As Guy n Texas has pointed out...…. "there is no way to assess vaccine effectiveness in an uncontrolled environment ... meaning: without direct and deliberate exposure to the virus, no one can legitimately claim that the vaccine prevented an illness event, when exposure is unknown. In such an uncontrolled environment, the absence of illness can be the result of non-exposure to the virus, as well as the proper functioning of the immune system upon exposure to it."
I'm over 70, have never gotten the shots, have never had the flu.
Is it because I have an natural immunity? Is it because I've never been exposed? Just lucky? Who knows, even though I have been around a couple of people who did have it.
'Just the fact of mutations and the very reasonable chance that having a shot won't provide protection anyway will keep me doing what I have been doing, or haven't, as the case may be
How profound, not! GuyNTexas and his followers are just showing they don't understand epidemiology. No, you can't prove that vaccination kept any one individual from getting the flu. But you can show that vaccination reduces the incidence of flu in a group when compared with unvaccinated people.
No, you do not have "natural immunity" to flu. There is no such thing in humans.
I broke one of my primary personal rules in this thread, and for that I must now apologize (while wiping egg from my face). I experienced a knee-jerk reaction then jumped in and stated a personal opinion without first tracking down the BEST arguments and evidence against my position. Shame on me. I will let this post stand as a testament to why this is a good general policy, and as an example of what can happen when one fails to uphold it.
There is a bit of extra irony here because I have been a long-time skeptic of big pharma, the medical industry and, more generally, anything where entrenched profit-motive-interests could be driving public paradigms and policies (which seems to include practically everything these days) so this topic should have triggered red flags for me all over the place. But in this case I got just plain lazy and broke my personal vows and now I have to pay for it. Thanks to GuyNTexas for posting the link that awoke me from my lazy slumber and made me feel foolish.
WARNING: I have still not done a good personal investigation of the actual scientific evidence, and I cannot personally attest to the credibility of the article by Jeremy R. Hammond, so I'm not totally flipping over to "the flu vaccine is worthless or dangerous," but I am, for the moment, landing squarely in the camp of "I don't know." Whatever Hammond's personal agenda, credibility, or expertise might be, he does seem to be offering good arguments and evidence for his conclusions, and that carries a lot of weight with me. Perhaps now someone can offer some good counter-arguments that are specific to the claims made by Hammond. If enough of his key points can be refuted, I may go back to my previous position. If not, I might join the ranks of the flu-vax skeptics.
Just to be clear: I'm focusing only on the flu vax here. I still think it is foolish for people to be anti-vax in general (but, as always, I'm open to good evidence and arguments to the contrary). I would hate to see anyone hastily generalize from "the flu vax is a scam" to "all vaxs are scams" or "all science is a scam" etc. - that logical fallacy leads to sheer stupidity and a lot of unnecessary suffering.
I applaud your open mindedness, and glad you found the article informative. While I could stealthfully navigate the topic touting an equally open mind, I must be honest. Given my extensive review of material (pro and con) over the past 25 years, I am at this point convinced that immunology as a medical science began as a fraud, and continues to be.
My opinion is based on facts that go back to the analysis of the “mother” of vaccines ... the smallpox vaccine, which claims to have eradicated that disease, followed by the polio vaccine, and it’s similar claims. In my experience of this debate, few have actually studied the history of immunology, therefore are unaware of the huge problems with the generally accepted narrative.... and while it is too much to cover here, you might want to research that history yourself. The readers digest version of the story is this: vaccination was invented based on an old wives tale that milkmaids seemed immune to the ravages of smallpox effecting so much of the population in those days. A Dr. Jenner (who never attended a medical school) theorized that the oozing puss found on the utters of cows suffering cowpox might be the reason these milkmaids seemed immune to the similar disease suffered by humans. Of course, smallpox and cowpox are two totally different viruses, and the use of cowpox virus as an inoculating agent against smallpox could never have worked. A much less advertised fact of those times showed that as the practice of inoculating humans with cowpox virus grew into mandatory vaccination schemes in Europe, everywhere such mandated vaccination was later conducted, a massive increase in death rates followed (contrary to the standard claim that it eradicated the disease, the reverse is actually the truth). This led to such public outrage, the practice ... or at least the mandate was abandoned, to prevent massive revolution.
If you wish to understand any story, the beginning is always a good place to start.
I am not opposed to getting a flue shot. At the same time, if it wasn't mandatory for me due to my line of work, I probably wouldn't get one out of laziness
Thank you Katarina! This certainly casts great doubt on Hammond's credibility. He appears to be anti-vaxxer in the broad sense and that, I think, is sheer stupidity. More importantly, that attitude poses a worldwide health risk. If his arguments against the flu vax are just more of the same drivel, then I am back to supporting the flu vax.
But there is an important "if" here. I don't want to committee the fallacy of attacking the arguer instead of the argument. What I would need to see now are specific refutations of his specific arguments against the flu vax. The link you posted raises important warning flags, but it does not contradict Hammond's specific claims in the article posted by GuyNTexas. So, for now, I have to remain on the fence.
The key issue in my mind is this: We already know that virtually all medical procedures carry some risks. The flu vax is no exception. The question is the overall cost/benefit ratio. Anecdotal evidence of certain individual getting sick from the shot, or still getting the flu after the get the shot, is just a red herring. No one doubts that such individual stories will exist. Statistically, such stories are practically inevitable. What matters is the overall comparative risks: Likelihood of serious complications from the flu shot vs. likelihood of getting the flu without the shot. There is no way I'm going to have time to personally investigate this. My hope is that some of you who have already jumped into this debate can offer some references that specifically address the points being made by Hammond. If his specific claims don't hold water, then the anti-flu-vax attitude loses a great deal of credibility (in my mind, at least).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
